A bill in the California Legislature could change the way public officers and candidates raise money for their campaigns by allowing them to use public funds, with some rules in place.
Under state law, public funds can’t be used for running for office, but legislation introduced by Sen. Tom Umberg seeks to change that, so long as the money isn’t specifically set aside for education, transportation or public safety. Public funds, as defined by the bill, are money given to a candidate by a state or local government to help them run for office.
Even if the bill passes out of the legislature and gets the governor’s signature, it will still be up to California voters to decide whether to lift the ban. It would be a question before voters in November 2026.
Supporters of public financing say it helps reduce the influence of money in politics and gives qualified candidates a chance to run without being discouraged by the high cost of campaigning.
Umberg, D-Santa Ana, said his bill does not require every city to use public financing.
“Some cities will welcome to the ability to (use public financing), some cities will not use the tool, and that’s ok,” he said. “Right now, it’s prohibited by law, and this simply allows local jurisdictions to use it.”
While the state’s Political Reform Act of 1974 generally prohibits the use of public funds for political campaigns, this restriction doesn’t apply to charter cities, which have the authority to establish their own rules regarding campaign financing.
Long Beach and Los Angeles — both charter cities — have public financing programs for city councils and other citywide races, according to the nonprofit Brennan Center, which tracks public financing options across the country.
For example, Los Angeles’ matching funds program, first enacted in 1990, helps eligible city candidates run for office without “relying on large donors or excessive fundraising,” according to the city’s Ethics Commission.
To qualify for funding, candidates must follow strict rules, including limiting personal contributions to $40,000 per election (based on 2024 numbers), secure at least 100 donations of $5 or more from district residents, qualify for the ballot, have an opponent, hold a debate or town hall, attend Ethics Commission training with their treasurer and file all campaign paperwork.
If these rules are followed, the city gives a candidate $6 for every $1 they get in donations.
Fourteen states offer public financing options, including New York, where eligible candidates receive public funds that match small donations of $5 to $250 from district residents.
According to the New York State Public Campaign Finance Board, “the total amount of public matching funds a candidate can receive is determined by the office sought, the competitive status of an opponent and the circumstances surrounding the particular election.” The program is available to candidates running for governor, lieutenant governor, state attorney general, state comptroller and state legislative seats.
Umberg said his bill “simply empowers local governments” to opt into using public financing, “whether it’s through vouchers or some sort of matching fund.”
“There are a multitude of models concerning public financing,” he said.
The bill outlines some restrictions, including a rule that public funds can’t go toward legal fees or fines, and they can’t be used to pay back personal loans for campaigns. However, it also leaves room for local governments to adjust spending limits.
There’s also a provision that could make violations more costly. If a candidate were to break the law by accepting contributions from foreign entities, they’d face a fine up to three times the amount they accepted.
David Shor of California Common Cause, a progressive group focused on campaign finance reform, said public financing of campaigns “empowers candidates from all walks of life to compete for public office without having to rely on wealthy donors.”
Umberg had introduced the bill in the previous legislative session, but it didn’t pass. He attributed the failure partly to a lack of urgency, given that the 2026 general election was still several years away.
At the time, Election Integrity Project California — a Santa Clarita-based group that sends election observers to the polls in every election — opposed the legislation, saying the bill would “laudably make public funds available for bona fide candidates who are at a financial and name-recognition disadvantage,” but that benefit would be “canceled out by the fact that incumbents would have equal access to those funds.”
Among various reasons, opponents of public financing argue that it’s an improper use of government money, particularly when people do not support the candidates or parties receiving the funding.
Umberg’s bill has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee.